The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “whilst” should be --while--. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al (US 11,685,301) in view of Ros (US 5,237,784), both previously cited.
Eberts shows a logistics system comprising:
a first vehicle 110 (Figs. 1A-B) having a front end and a rear end disposed opposite one another in a longitudinal direction of the first vehicle, and a first lateral side and a second lateral side disposed opposite one another in a transverse direction of the first vehicle;
a second vehicle 120 (Figs. 1D-E) that is smaller than the first vehicle, the second vehicle having a front end and a rear end disposed opposite one another in a longitudinal direction of the second vehicle, and a first lateral side and a second lateral side disposed opposite one another in a transverse direction of the second vehicle; and
a container 150 (Fig. 1C) having a first end and a second end disposed opposite one another in a longitudinal direction of the container, and a first lateral side and a second lateral side disposed opposite one another in a transverse direction of the container, wherein a length W of the container in the longitudinal direction is greater than a width L of the container in the transverse direction (or at least can be; see col. 6:49-55 and Figs. 1A-D), the container comprising:
a container body 150 configured to store consignments therein, the container body comprising (see Fig. 3C): a floor disposed along a bottom of the container; a first end wall disposed along the first end of the container; a second end wall disposed along the second end of the container; a first sidewall disposed along the first lateral side of the container; a second sidewall disposed along the second lateral side of the container; and
a first movement arrangement attached to the container body (not explicitly identified but note col. 8:6-33 and col. 11:21-25) and configured to interact with the first vehicle for moving the container along the longitudinal direction of the first vehicle (Fig. 6B); and
a second movement arrangement attached to the container body (again, not explicitly identified but note col. 8:6-33 and col. 11:21-25) and configured to interact with the second vehicle for moving the container along the longitudinal direction of the second vehicle (Figs. 6A, 6C);
wherein the container is configured to be received on the first vehicle, with the first sidewall and the second sidewall oriented in the transverse direction of the first vehicle (Figs. 1A-B, 5-8); and
wherein the container is further configured to be received on the second vehicle, with the first sidewall and the second sidewall oriented in the longitudinal direction of the second vehicle (Figs. 1A, 5-6).
Eberts does not disclose that the container body further comprises a plurality of recesses disposed at intersections between respective pairs of the first end wall, the second end wall, the first sidewall, and the second sidewall; a plurality of legs attached to the container body and adjustable between a deployed position, in which the legs extend below the floor, and a retracted position, in which the legs are disposed within the recesses, in order for the container to be received on the first vehicle or the second vehicle.
However, Eberts discloses that in addition to direct vehicle-to-vehicle transfer, containers can also be transferred to or from an intermediate structure or to ground (col. 6:2-7; Figs. 2D, 8).
Ros shows a container comprising: a container body configured to store consignments therein, the container body comprising (Figs. 1-9): a floor 2 disposed along a bottom of the container; a first end wall 3 disposed along a first end of the container; a second end wall 4 disposed along a second end of the container; a first sidewall 5 disposed along a first lateral side of the container; a second sidewall 6 disposed along a second lateral side of the container; and a plurality of recesses 50 disposed at intersections between respective pairs of the first end wall, the second end wall, the first sidewall, and the second sidewall (col. 4:13-25); a plurality of legs 51 (Figs. 10-17) attached to the container body and adjustable between a deployed position, in which the legs extend below the floor, and a retracted position, in which the legs are disposed within the recesses, in order for the container to be received on a vehicle 24 (Figs. 18-19, 26-30). This arrangement allows for sufficient width between the legs when deployed for the vehicle to pass underneath the container when loading.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Eberts with a plurality of recesses disposed at intersections between respective pairs of the first end wall, the second end wall, the first sidewall, and the second sidewall, a plurality of legs attached to the container body and adjustable between a deployed position, in which the legs extended below the floor, and a retracted position, in which the legs were disposed within the recesses, in order for the container to be received on the first vehicle or the second vehicle, as suggested by Ros, to allow sufficient width between the legs when deployed for the vehicle to pass underneath the container when loading.
Re claim 6, Eberts shows a second container 150b configured to be received on the first vehicle such that a sidewall of a container body of the second container is arranged adjacent to the first sidewall or the second sidewall of the container body of the container 150a (Fig. 1B), and such that consignments can be transferred between the second container and the container via openings formed in the sidewall of the container body of the second container and the first sidewall or the second sidewall of the container body of the container (Figs. 3E-F). While Figs. 3E-F show the containers on the (smaller) second vehicle, such transfer between the containers could clearly also occur when positioned adjacent one another on the (larger) first vehicle, as in Fig. 1B.
Re claim 9, Eberts shows that the container is configured to be coupled to a traction device 124 of the vehicle 120, wherein the traction device is configured to pull the vehicle and the container toward one another in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Fig. 2A). While this vehicle is the second rather than the first vehicle, Eberts further discloses that containers may also be transferred from vehicle 120 to vehicle 110 (col. 11:38-43). As such, it would have been obvious to have provided such a traction device on vehicle 110 as well, in order to provide the same advantage of a mechanized device that would enable easier transfer of the container onto the vehicle.
Re claim 18, Ros shows that the legs are configured to translate, relative to the container body, between the deployed position and the retracted position. As such, when modified as above, the limitation would be met.
Re claim 20, Ros further shows that the legs are disposed above the floor of the container body when the legs are in the retracted position. Again, when modified as above, the limitation would be met.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leveque et al (FR 3076824, previously cited).
Eberts discloses the first and second movement arrangements to comprise rotatable container supports 126 (i.e., roller/runner elements; see Fig. 2A) that may be provided on the container and/or either or both of the first and second trucks, wherein first roller elements of the roller elements are oriented in the transverse direction of the container to enable the movement of the container, with its long side oriented along a transverse direction of the large vehicle, along the longitudinal direction thereof, as in Fig. 6B, and wherein second roller elements of the roller elements are oriented in the longitudinal direction of the container to enable the movement of the container, with its long side oriented along a longitudinal direction of the small vehicle, along the longitudinal direction thereof, as in Figs. 6A and 6C (col. 8:6-33, col. 10:10-28, col. 11:15-25).
However, Eberts does not disclose such roller/runner elements on the container to interact with corresponding vehicle-mounted track elements comprised of a plurality of first rails arranged on the first vehicle extending in the longitudinal direction of the first vehicle, and a plurality of second rails arranged on the second vehicle extending in the longitudinal direction of the second vehicle, wherein the first roller elements and the second roller elements project downward from the container to different extents.
Leveque shows a container 10 having long and short sides, and configured to be moved relative to a loading surface 20 of a transport vehicle in either a transverse (Fig. 4) or longitudinal (Fig. 5) orientation by virtue of first 12/13 and second 14/15 roller/runner elements arranged on the container interacting with corresponding vehicle-mounted track elements comprised of at least one first rail 21 arranged on the vehicle and extending along the longitudinal direction thereof, and at least one second rail 22 arranged on the vehicle extending along the transverse direction thereof, wherein the first roller elements and the second roller elements project downward from the container to different extents (implicit insofar as the rails 21, 22 are situated on vertically separated parallel planes).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Eberts by configuring the vehicle-mounted elements of the first and second movement arrangements as track elements interacting with the first and second roller elements of the container, such track elements comprising a plurality of first rails arranged on the first vehicle extending in the longitudinal direction thereof, and a plurality of second rails arranged on the second vehicle extending in the longitudinal direction thereof, wherein the first roller elements and the second roller elements projected downward from the container to different extents, as suggested by Leveque, to provide a more positive and secure guiding function of the container while being transferred to and from each vehicle. While Leveque does not explicitly disclose a plurality of first rails and a plurality of second rails, the disclosure of “at least one” of each type of rail is considered to imply that more than one could be provided. As such, the provision of a plurality of first rails and a plurality of second rails would have simply been an obvious duplication of parts to ensure proper alignment (i.e., prevent skewing) of the container during movement thereof along the respective vehicles, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8), and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is obtained (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros and Leveque et al, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Myllyla (EP 2,735,475, previously cited).
Eberts shows at least the second vehicle to include a downwardly tiltable ramp unit at the rear end thereof (Fig. 2D) which would inherently support the at least one runner element of the container when loading same, but does not show such a ramp unit on the first vehicle as well, nor does it support the container while legs thereof are in contact with a ground surface.
Ros shows the vehicle to include a structure that supports the container while at least one of the legs is in contact with a ground surface (Fig. 29), but it is not a downwardly tiltable ramp unit.
Myllyla shows an arrangement for loading a container 5 onto a large (first) vehicle 1, comprising a ramp unit 14 arranged at the rear end of the first vehicle, wherein the ramp unit is at least downwardly tiltable and configured to support the lower surface of the container while [whilst] at least one leg 23 thereof is in contact with a ground surface.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Eberts by providing a ramp unit on the rear end of the first vehicle, wherein the ramp unit was downwardly tiltable and configured to support the at least one runner element while at least one of the legs was in contact with a ground surface, as collectively suggested by Eberts, Ros and Myllyla, so that the first vehicle could also be used to load containers when supported by retractable legs on a ground surface.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Myllyla.
Eberts as modified does not show the ramp unit being configured, in order to receive the container, to be arranged between two legs thereof in the transverse direction of the vehicle.
Myllyla shows the arrangement for loading the container onto the vehicle to include the ramp unit being configured, in order to receive the container, to be arranged between two legs 22 thereof in a transverse direction of the vehicle (Figs. 2-4).
In a manner substantially similar to that set forth above with respect to claim 5, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Eberts by arranging the ramp unit between two legs of the container in a transverse direction of the first vehicle, as shown by Myllyla, to more effectively handle the container while being transferred to or from the vehicle.
Re claim 8, as noted above with respect to claim 5, Myllyla shows the ramp to be pivotable about a transverse axis of the first vehicle. As such, when modified as above, the limitation would be met.
Re claim 11, insofar as all limitations of the claim are covered by claims 1 and 7 discussed above, no further analysis is deemed necessary.
Re claim 12, when modified as above, the ramp unit of Eberts would clearly be downwardly tiltable and configured to support the first movement arrangement while the container was being loaded onto the first vehicle.
Re claim 16, as noted above with respect to claim 18, Ros shows that the legs are configured to translate, relative to the container body, between the deployed position and the retracted position. As such, when modified as above, the limitation would be met.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richardson (US 11,958,397, previously cited).
Eberts as modified does not show that the first vehicle comprises a conveyor device configured to form-fittingly engage with the container and push the container, which is received on the first vehicle in the longitudinal direction.
Richardson shows a similar logistics system wherein a container transfer system 100 can be provided on either a first (larger) or second (smaller) vehicle shown in Fig. 3 (also note Fig. 9), the system including a conveyor device 120 that is configured to form-fittingly engage with a container 61-64 and push the container, which is received on the first vehicle in the longitudinal direction (col. 9:35-42; col. 12:4-21; col. 13:33-43).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Eberts by configuring the first vehicle to include a conveyor device that was configured to form-fittingly engage with the container and push the container, when received on the first vehicle in the longitudinal direction, as taught by Richardson, to more effectively move the container along the longitudinal direction of the larger vehicle.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros and Myllyla, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Leveque et al.
The rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 6 with respect to analogous claims 2-4. No further analysis is deemed necessary.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clarkson (US 5,651,527, previously cited).
Eberts as modified does not show the legs configured to pivot, relative to the container body, between the deployed position and the retracted position.
Clarkson shows a container support structure 10/12 configured to be received on a vehicle, wherein the container has multiple legs, at least two (62, 64) of which are configured to pivot, relative to the container structure, between a deployed position and a retracted position (Figs. 7a-c).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the apparatus of Eberts by configuring the legs to pivot, relative to the container body, between the deployed position and the retracted position, as this would simply be the selection of one of a finite number of known means of moving legs between a deployed position in which they support a container on a ground surface and a retracted position in which the container is supported on a vehicle, the selection of which would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberts et al in view of Ros and Myllyla, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Clarkson.
The rejection utilizes the same obviousness rationale set forth above in par. 11 with respect to analogous claim 19. No further analysis is deemed necessary.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van den Heuvel shows a container with retractable legs arranged at the four corners thereof (Fig. 3).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
3/19/26